INF/IFD/R/ 27 
10 December 2021 
(21-9271) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
  
WTO STRUCTURED DISCUSSIONS ON  
INVESTMENT  FACILITATION FOR DEVELOPMENT  
NEGOTIATING MEETING HELD ON 4 AND 5 OCTO BER 2021 
Summary of discussions by the Coordinator1 
An open-ended negotiating meeting of the Struc tured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development, coordinated by Ambassador Mathias Francke (Chile), was held on  4 and 5 Octo ber 
2021.  As indicated in the annotated agenda circulated to all WTO Members ahead of the meeting2, 
the objectives  of the meetin g were: (a) to continue the review of Section III  ('Streamlining and 
Speeding Up Administrative Procedures ') of the 'Easter Text (Rev.1)'3 as a whole ; (b) to d iscuss 
Section V ('Special and Differential Treatment for Developing and Least -Developed Country 
Members') ; (c) to review provisions 21 on 'Focal Points' and 22 on 'Domestic Regulatory Coherence' , 
and discuss  provision 24 on 'Cross -border Co -operation on Investment Facilitation' ; (d) to discuss 
Section IV BIS ('Home State Obligations') ; (e) to d iscuss Section III TER ('Transfers and Payments') ; 
and (f) to h old a conceptual discussion on the integration of the future IFD Agreement into the WTO 
legal structure . In addition, a text proposal on 'Non -Discrimination' was presented by a Member.4 
1  CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW OF SECTION III ('STREAMLINING AND SPEEDING UP 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES' ) 
1.1.  Participating Members continued  their review as a whole of Section III on 'Streamlining and 
Speeding Up Administrative Procedures' of the 'Easter Text (Rev.1)' . The section was widely 
supported ; however, it was highlighted that  before its finaliz ation, further clarity was needed on the 
definition of key concepts (notably 'authorization' ) and, as a result , on the section's scope of 
application .  
1.2.  Memb ers participating in the meeting welcomed  provision 12 on 'Reasonable, Objective and 
Impartial Administration of Measures' , provision 17 on 'Use of ICT/E -Government' , and 
provision 18 on 'Independence of Competent Authorities'  – all of which did not contain any 
bracketed language.  Regarding  provision 13 on 'General Principles for Authorization 
Procedures' , a delegation suggested  that the last sentence of footnote 16 , which reaffirm ed the 
exclusion  of market  access rights from th e Agreement , could  be removed , provided that such 
exclusion  was clearly stated in the Agreement's provision  on 'Scope' . As for provision 14 on 
'Authorization Procedures' , some participating Members suggested remov ing the last part of 
paragraph 14.1(c)  – namely  the expression  "from the authority holding the original or the 
authenticated copy " – to allow for more flexibility .5 Regarding paragraph 14.1(i), several Members  
favoured the inclusion of  the term "in writing" (and the deletion of the brackets around it)  to ensure  
that investors receive d written and well-founded replies from competent authorities . 
1.3.  Regarding provision 15  on 'Multiple Applications' , a Member raised a concern regarding  the 
encouragement to use a single -entry point  for the applications . It explained  that a single investment 
could be subject to a range of separate authorizations  and processes , which  were quite different 
from one another . However, all other delegations who spoke, were comfortable with , and supported , 
 
1 This summary, prepared and circulated under the Coordinator's responsibility, provides a non -
exhaustive, illustrative review of the issues addressed by Members at the meeting.  
2 Document INF/IFD/W/38 dated 30 September 2021.  
3 Document INF/IFD /RD/74/Rev.1 dated 23 July 2021.  
4 Document INF/IFD/RD/85 dated 30 September 2021.  
5 Note that paragraph 14.1(c) is inspired from TFA Article 10:2.2 on 'Acceptance of Copies'.  INF/IFD/R/ 27 
 
- 2 - 
 
  the langu age of provision 15 including the bracketed last sentence ( "Members may use the single 
information portal referred to in paragraph 7.1 under Section II for that purpose "), given the very 
flexible language used.  
1.4.  In paragraph 1 of  provision 16  on 'Authorizat ion Fees' , participants supported the inclusion 
of the term 'investment activities' to replace the language  spelling out the whole investment lifecycle6 
– provided  an agreement could be reached on the definition of 'investment activities' . In this context , 
a delegation reiterated its position that the definition of 'investment activities' should exclude the 
pre-establishment phase (i.e. , the establishment and acquisition  of an investment ). Regarding 
paragraph 16 .2, a participant asked whether some flexibility could be added to its wording  owing to 
the fact that, in its legal system, authorization fees came into force only upon their publication 
(making it difficult  for it to foresee a time period between the publi cation and the entry into force  of 
such fees ). Another Member noted the use of different wordings for emergency situations  in the 
future Agreement:  whereas  paragraph  16.2 used the phrase "except in urgent circumstances" 
(based on TFA) , paragraph 5.1 mentio ned "except in emergency situations". Regarding provision 
16 BIS on 'Authorization Fees – Financial Services' , a delegation enquired whether the same 
footnote as currently attached to paragraph 16.17 should also be included  in paragraph 16.3 . 
Concerning provision 19  on 'Appeal and Review' , participants supported the inclusion of the term 
"or procedures" (and deletion of the brackets around it) in paragraph 19. 1. A Member was still 
reviewing the bracketed language in paragraph 19 .3(b).8 Lastly , on provision 20  on 'Periodic 
Review' , participants supported the inclusion of  the terms  "measures of general application within 
the scope of this Agreement " in paragraph 20 .1 and suggested remov ing the reference to the World 
Bank's ease of doing business index in paragraph 20 .3, due to its discontinuation.9 
2  DISCUSSION ON SECTION V ('SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL  TREATMENT FOR 
DEVELOPING AND LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS'  – S&DT ) 
2.1.  Under this agenda item, participants discussed 'Draft Text'10 prepared by the Coordinator on  
provision 25  on 'General Principles'  of Section V , which was overall well received . This provision 
was deemed key as it lays  the ground for the subsequent, more operational S&DT provisions  in that 
Section. The 'Draft Text', which built on Members'  text proposals as well as  past discussions, aimed 
at streamlining th ose proposals , in order to allow participants to focus on key text alternatives . As 
to the different formulations for providing  Technical Assistance and Capacity  Building  (TACB ) in 
paragraph 25.2, participants expressed diverging views  – some support ed the use of the term 'sh all'; 
while others favoured the term 'should' in line with the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)  approach. 
The latter group emphasized the need for balanc e between the possibility for recipients to  self-
designat e and the requirement for donors to provide TACB . Participants also discussed the different 
formulations relating to TACB in the context of n eeds assessments, which were deemed important 
to help developing and least-developed countries with the categorization of provisions. Two 
delegation s announced their intention to submit a text proposal  on self-assessment to help clarify 
Members' understand ing on this issue.  Regarding provision 29 on 'Technical Assistance and 
Capacity Building ', the same two delegation s invited interested Members to participate in 
consultations to develop common  ground and a possible  text on S&DT and notably on TACB, ahead 
of MC12.  
3  TEXT PROPOSAL ON 'NON -DISCRIMINATION'  
3.1.  Participa nts discuss ed on a preliminary basis  a text proposal on 'Non -Discrimination'  
recently submitted by a Member as an alternative to the provision on M ost-Favoured Nation (MFN)  
treatment . The proponent explained that its proposal,  which depart ed from MFN language commonly 
used in WTO Agreements , aimed at avoiding the use of the term 'treatment' . Instead, it focused on 
the principle of 'non -discrimination'  with respect to the app lication of provisions  in the future  IFD 
 
6 Namely the phrase "the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, cond uct, operation and 
sale or other disposition of an investment ". 
7 The footnote states: "Authorization fees do not include fees for the use of natural resources, royalties, 
payments for auction, tendering or other non -discriminatory means of awarding conces sions, or mandated 
contributions to universal service provision".  
8 Bracketed language in paragraph 19:3(b): "; and a decision based on the evidence and submissions of 
record or, where required by its law, the record compiled by the administrative authorit y". 
9 See the full statement on 'World Bank Group to Discontinue Doing Business Report' . 
10 'Texts for Discussion at the Negotiating  Meeting on 4 – 5 October 2021', restricted document without 
document symbol, dated 28 September 2021 ; p. 3 . INF/IFD/R/ 27 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Agreement . Several participants welcomed the proposal, viewing it as in line with the nature of the 
IFD Agreement and as a good  basis for  discussion . In the ensuing discussion , questions were raised  
on the interpretation of  the term  'other Members'  in the first paragraph of the text proposal ; as well 
as on the absence of an exception for Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the absence of a 
reference to the non -importation clause  – unlike  the proposed  alternative provisions on MFN 
treatment . Some Members  questioned such a departure from well -known language.  Many 
participating Members were still considering th e proposal and said they would revert back with 
comments at the next meeting.  
4  DISCUSSION ON SECTIO N IV ('FOCAL POINTS, DOMESTIC REGULATORY COHERENCE 
AND CROSS -BORDER COOPERATION')  
4.1.  Participating Members reviewed provision  21 on 'Focal Points' , focusing on the two remaining 
bracketed phrases . A number of  participants saw value in  including , in paragraph 21 .3, example s of 
additional functions that focal points  could carry out  (such as  seeking to resolve problems of 
investors ); while two Members preferred not to include such examples . Two other Members asked 
for clarifications on the differenc e between the functions of focal points laid out , respectively,  in 
paragraph s 21.1(a) and (b) . A delegation answered that paragraph  21.1(a) concern ed situations in 
which an investor submitted a question to the focal point;  whereas paragraph 21.1( b) relate d to 
assisting investors to obtain information from competent authorit ies, including assistance with 
administrative procedures . Participants welcome d provision 22 on 'Domestic Regulatory 
Coherence ', which  did not contain  any brackets .  
4.2.  Regarding provision 24 on 'Cross -Border Co -operation on Investment Facilitation ', the 
Coordinator presented further streamlined 'Revised Draft Text' prepared under his own 
responsibilit y.11 While many p articipants welcomed the 'Revised Draft  Text' as adequately reflect ing 
previously expressed comments , two Members were still analysing it and thus had to reserve their 
position . Questions were asked about the definition of "domestic investors" and what the " exchang e 
of information on domestic investor s" was supposed to cover  (both in paragraph 24 .2(b) of the 
'Revised Draft Text' ). Participants considered that the indicative list of cooperation areas among 
Members' competent authorities should not be too prescriptive . They viewed sub-paragraphs  24.2(f) 
and (g) , originally proposed by a Member12, as pertaining to investment promotion  (rather than 
facilitation) and  thus, as going beyond the scope of the IFD Agreement.  Finally , two participating 
Members question ed the need to include language on  bilateral cooperation – in addition to 
multilateral cooperation – in the IFD Committee.  
5  DISCUSSION ON SECTION IV BIS ('HOME STATE OBLIGATIONS')  
5.1.  Participating Members discussed a text proposal  submitted by two Members on 'Home State 
Obligations'  included  in Section IV BIS of the 'Easter Text (Rev.1)' .13 Some participants reiterated 
their concerns about whether this provision was within the scope of the Agreement , arguing that 
some of its  elements pertain ed to investment promotion . Other Members viewed  that some elements 
in the text proposal , which  were linked to transparency and the sharing of experiences in the 
Committee , could be  included in the future Agreement, under the relevant provisions.  Some 
participants reiterated their concerns regarding the sharing of information on the operations of 
individual companies /investors as well as on  adopting measures to facilitate outward  investment  – 
which, they argued, was not covered by the future Agreement . The proponent s informed  that they 
would revisit their text proposal in view of submitting  a revised proposal.  
6  DISCUSSION ON SECTION III TER ('TRANSFERS AND PAYMENTS')  
6.1.  Under this agenda item, Members discussed Section III TER ('Transfers and Payments' ) of 
the 'Easter Text (Rev.1)' , which  includes the revised proposal submitted by a Member .14 The 
proponent reiterated the relevance of its proposal in particular to the pre -establishment phase of 
the investment lifecycle . It emphasized that the proposal  did not pertain to  investment protection , 
which is explicitly excluded from the scope of the future IFD Agreement . A delegation supported th e 
 
11 'Texts for Discussion at the Negotiating Meeting on 4 – 5 October 2021', restricted document without 
document symbol, dated 28 September 2021 ; p. 2. 
12 See section 2.2 of document INF/IFD/RD/83 ; p.3. 
13 Document INF/IFD/RD/80 ; pp. 1-2. 
14 Document INF/IFD/RD/76.  INF/IFD/R/ 27 
 
- 4 - 
 
  proposal, w hereas  another  delegation expressed reservations on the text and held the view that it 
went beyond the scope of the future IFD Agreem ent. The proponent informed that it would consult 
with individual delegations  to see how their specific concerns  could be addressed . 
7  CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION ON THE INTEGRATION OF THE FUTURE IFD AGREEMENT 
INTO THE WTO LEGAL STRUCTURE  
7.1.  Following upon  an academi c discussion on the 'possible options to give legal effect to the 
outcome of the negotiations on investment facilitation for development ' held on 31 May  2021, 
participants for the first time discussed among them selves  the integration of the future IFD 
Agreement into the WTO legal structure , based on guiding questions circulated by the 
Coordinator.15 While recognizing that the integration of negotiated outcomes from Joint Statement 
Initiatives into the WTO legal structure was  a systemic issue  that went beyond investment facilitation 
for development and was linked to the broader WTO reform discussion,  participants discussed the 
different legal options  namely: incorporation as a stand -alone agreement  either as an Annex 4 or as 
an Annex 1 Agreement16; incorporation in GATT/GATS schedules; or IFD Agreement applied on a 
provisional basis with a view to its future incorporation into the WTO legal structure. While discus sing 
these options , participants had in mind the  specificities of the IFD  Agreement , namely  its scope  
(coverage of both, goods and services  sectors) ; the erga omnes  application of most of its provisions , 
which  would de facto be implemented on a non-discriminatory basis,  thereby benefiting all WTO 
Members;  and its strong development component providing  for comprehensive  technical assistance 
and capacity building for its implementation.  
7.2.  In general, participants stressed that the 'first-best option' , by far, was to achieve a multilateral  
outcome , thus under Annex 1  of the WTO Agreement . In this regard, they  highlighted that the IFD 
Agreement aimed at helping all Members, particularly devel oping and  LDC Members, to implement 
investment facilitation  reforms to attract  and increase investment  flows. Several participants 
stressed t he fact that the IFD initiative  had been launched by developing countries, and that over a 
hundred Members were  currently participating in the negotiations.  
7.3.  Highlighting the pro -multilateral nature of the IFD initiative, participants discussed the pros 
and cons of the different above -mentioned  legal options  for incorporating the results of the 
negotiations in the WTO rulebook. Given  the specificities of the future IFD Agreement, most 
participants considered that incorporating it as a stand -alone Annex 4 'Plurilateral Agreement' , 
applied on an MFN -basis (or with its benefits accruing to all WTO Members ), would be a  valid 'second -
best option '. Participants were cognisant that this option would , like the first -best option , equally 
require consensus.  A delegation  flagged that , in its interpretation, although  an Annex 4  Agreem ent 
would not create any obligations or rights for non-participants,  nothing prevent ed participants from 
voluntarily  extending the benefits  to non-participants . Regarding the inclusion of an MFN provision 
in the future Agreement, participants viewed that , although it could  facilitate  the consensus required , 
the decision  to integrate  the outcome of the IFD negotiations  into the WTO legal structure  critically  
depended on other factor s – notably  on political trade-offs in the broader WTO context , WTO reform 
issues, etc .  
7.4.  While some participants were open to explore  the 'scheduling approach', most considered that 
this approach  was not appropriate  notably given the scope of the future IFD Agreement  (covering 
both goods and services) . It was argued that s cheduling obligations related to investment in goods 
and services respectively under GATT and GATS schedules of commitments could result  in a 
piecemeal approach  and a fragmentat ed, sub-optimal  implementation of the Agreement . 
A participant stated that the inclusion  into schedules of commitments could create expectations that 
the IFD Agreement covered market access. Other options discussed included the possibility of 
amending the WTO Agreement t o create a new 'Annex 5' to incorporat e the outcomes of 'open 
plurilateral ' initiatives , as well as adopting the future IFD Agreement on a provisional/interim basis 
pending its incorporation into the WTO  Agreement . A participant highlighted the need to thi nk 
'out of the box' and stated that it was exploring the possibility of resorting to Article IX  of the WTO 
Agreement on 'Decision -making' . While stating their readiness to explore the different options more 
 
15 Guiding questions prepared by the Coordinator, circulated to all WTO Members on 29 September 
2021.  
16 Pursuant , respectively, to Article X:9 and X:1 of the WTO Agreement.  INF/IFD/R/ 27 
 
- 5 - 
 
  in-depth once the time would be ripe , all partici pants stressed that the priority was to advance 
on the text of the Agreement , particularly  its substantive  disciplines and S&DT Section.   
8  NEXT MEETING  
8.1.  The Coordinator informed participating Members that , as foreseen in the 'Schedule of Meetings  
for April – MC12 ,17 the next intersessional  meeting would take place on 20-21 October  2021. 
 
__________  
 
17 Document INF/IFD/W/29/Rev.2 dated 22 April 2021.